In theory, every novel is comprised of an antagonist, protagonist, and the supporting characters. While each charter is defined to their own set of properties that make them who they are, there is always an undertone that reference another individual, idea, or object for creating what I like to call 4-D characters. By providing these characters, the author gives ideas for the analytical readers to bury themselves in, easily destroying any assumption that the book is a “quick read”. Grendel and Beowulf are such books that are considered quick reads by the mediocre high school audience, yet they fail to define the undertones of most of the charters that drives the novel into another discussion thus creating a defining picture of a road with …show more content…
Yes, Grendel is the antagonist in both novels because he is a “monster” or in a friendlier term, the humans are oblivious to the understandings of his unfamiliar figure. On the heroic battle field, I would like to state that Hrothgar is the main protagonist in Grendel, while the secondary one in Beowulf, following behind Beowulf. In relation to those literary terms, redefining those as good/evil, a little broad, but gives room for expansion. This general statement was determined from the beginning of Grendel when Grendel found himself dangling in the tree and Hrothgar and his clan mates stumble upon him questioning the identification of the creature. Gardener foreshadowed that the future schism between the two individuals was soon coming. However, in Beowulf, their first encounter in not mentioned. Grendel is brought into existence through the reference of his terrorization of the citizens of the town. This is somewhat because Beowulf’s spotlight is on Beowulf instead of Hrothgar. Nevertheless, by comparing the two books one can understand that there is an underlying encounter from the innumerable kennings used by the citizens to describe Grendel. Each one more villainous than the next and relates to the fact that he is derived from some sort of evil, implying that there is previous knowledge that dates a first encounter with